People in the west believe that all civilization is Greek in origin. Radhakrishnan points out the mistake in this and says that half the worlds- China and Japan, Tibet and Siam, Burma and Ceylon look to India as their spiritual home.

Radhakrishnan explains religion in a variety of ways: as a kind of life, an insight onto the nature of reality, an attitude of the self, intuition, or faith in the sense of ‘the vision of the soul, the power by which spiritual things are apprehended’ as Welsey explains faith.

Radhakrishnan dispels several misconceptions regarding Hinduism. He says, Hindu thought has no mistrust reason. On the authority of Bhamati he says that only that part of tradition which is logically coherent is to be accepted as superior to the evidence of the senses and not the whole it. This is the correct understanding of S’rutis cannot make us believe that fire is cold. But Radhakrishnan recognizes the value of tradition and observes that a society which puts a halo of sanctity round its tradition gains power and permanence. The Vedas register the intuitions of the perfected souls and have this sanctity about them.

An excellent, distinct, trait of Hinduism is gain brought to the notice of the readers, ‘ The Hindu thinker readily admits other points of view than his own,.’ ‘Hinduism’, he says, ‘is the religion not only of the Vedas, but of Epics and Puranas. The Puranas with their wild chronology weird stories were treated as a part of the sacred tradition because some people took interest in them. The Tantras were treated similarly.

According to Radhakrishnan the Veda is not a religion, but religion in itself, and it is by no means sectarian.

Speaking of religion as an experience Radhakrishnan raises the question, ‘What is it that is experienced?’ no two religious agree on the answer to this question. That is why we have different pictures of God. But the Hindu thinker did not hurry to the conclusion that in religious experiences we ascribe objective existence to subjective suggestions as some do. He never doubted the reality of one supreme spirit. It is true, however, that the images of God vary with different persons, as John Smith says “Such as men are, such will God Himself seem to them to be.” God is viewed as the supreme knower, lover, and will-Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. Radhakrishnan thinks that these are not independent forms, but are three sides of one complex personality. He again observes that to admit various descriptions of God is not to lapse into polytheism. The ultimate basis of existence from a religious point of view is either an Absolute or God. Logic and mystic contemplation favour the former conception while theism favours the latter. Hinduism accepts all religious notions as facts and arranges them in order.

Radhakrishnan admits that though the educated tolerance popular notions as inadequate shadows of the incomprehensible, people at large believe them to be just and trustworthy. He says that in the name of toleration we have protected superstitious rites. He calls upon the leaders to hold aloft the highest conception of God and impress it on the minds of the people.

Characteristics of Hinduism

            Radhakrishnan points out that the mystic experience of various people is much the same. He quotes Miss Evelyn Underhill who says that there is not any wide difference between the Brahmin, the sufi or the Christian mystic at their best. Bearing this fact in mind Hinduism, unlike the Semitic faiths, developed an attitude of charity instead of a fanatic faith in an inflexible creed. It may be remarked in this connection that if, as Radhakrishnan said before, it is a sound religious agnosticism which bids us hold our peace regarding the nature of the supreme spirit, it is difficult for any seer, howsoever great, to determine the nature of God. Under these circumstances how can one claim absolute authority for one’s own belief of God and condemn that of the others as false? Unfortunately this however, has been the case with many faiths. Had they seen through this fact as Hinduism has done through ages, the world would have been saved much bloodshed and ill will! If not for anything else, at least for this singular virtue Hinduism deserves the thanks of all philanthropists. It was on account of this catholicity of Hinduism that not only individuals but whole tribes were absorbed into the Hindu fold as vouchsafed by ceremonies like the Vratyastoma.

Radhakrishnan thinks that the Vedic culture becomes transformed in the Epics into the Hindu culture through Dravidian influence. Worship takes the place of home or sacrifice. Image- worship, a striking feature of the Dravidian cult, was accepted by the Aryans.

Conclusion

            Speaking of Hindu tolerance, Radhakrishnan notes Hinduism never encouraged persecution for unbelief. As a result, the persecuted refugees of all great religious found shelter in India. The Jews, the Christians, the Parsees were allowed perfect freedom of worship. One cannot, however, be so optimistic as he when he says that the Hindu solution of the problem of religious conflicts is likely to he accepted by all in near future.